From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7EBBC69 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 02:39:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.189]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l720dSsS023053 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 02:39:29 +0200 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so267367rvb for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:39:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Z/0s/g9xleHiMSi7BEzSHdMFWOEjg/TKjpGp6OJVwAXBUBC6+v139NjUlMXVHRLmjraEf0ummAksfpudMJjMMIFbkY0u/SzqInrlMIT8WNIbXeU9vbacRInTT8ZGsS2M68t0SEmZlF2GyHFScf1gXKNRZbYLrrGMUhZeYCojfGU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=L5oGLFICaGMOnZlp15IZdcKqaOPZC/HCqIEeicGdrg+DNJ4Op74qFN3u8HzwNr44xBgH848QgPGwuSI2f2ezwpeJDbsUKALPS5Am/xakrg2bjedZJ8fnRi4Pc4wmMBerHa+CA778dWvTDVbYm9TxCR9Zo45wqs4LUlPJPjfCmGk= Received: by 10.140.170.12 with SMTP id s12mr456487rve.1186015168070; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.99.5 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <891bd3390708011739r254c6297o78fddf60c6d78ea4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:39:28 -0400 From: "Yaron Minsky" Sender: yminsky@gmail.com To: "OCaml List" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] segfault in 3.10.0 In-Reply-To: <1A56E60C-26B2-42E0-BDE1-21DA8F92406D@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17635_9127083.1186015168040" References: <7209A0C0-93DC-46A9-940D-47C54EB31E1B@gmail.com> <1A56E60C-26B2-42E0-BDE1-21DA8F92406D@gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5a969e0497643cc9 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46B127C0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 segfault:01 backtrace:01 segfault:01 trivial:01 computations:01 gdb:01 backtrace:01 ocaml:01 segfaults:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 inputs:01 ------=_Part_17635_9127083.1186015168040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline It might be useful to post the stack backtrace. y On 8/1/07, Andres Varon wrote: > > Another bit of information is that I can segfault the program even > for the most trivial input, with minimal computations involved. And > when run under gdb, the backtrace lists pure OCaml function calls, > and always the same one. > > On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Andres Varon wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > Has anyone observed sudden segfaults in OCaml 3.10.0 amd-64 under > > linux? I have this program that has been run for quite a while > > without any segfault (almost a year). It may run for weeks at a > > time in parallel in our cluster, using as many as 256 processors at > > a time. We delayed updating to 3.10.0 due to the changes in camlp4, > > but the day before yesterday I worked on it, upgraded, and suddenly > > a lot of the nightly unit tests in 64 bits fail with a segfault (a > > LOT of them), when every test passed clean with 3.09.3. None of the > > tests for other architectures fail though (windows, mac os X intel > > and 32-bit ppc). One down side is that we have C structures > > wrapped, so one may blame our program. > > > > However, efence and valgrind show no sign of problem, and the fact > > that we have been using those structures for a while, and many test > > iterations have passed for many inputs, and not only us, but many > > people in other computers have compiled and run our program without > > having segfaults ... I'm doubtful. > > > > Unfortunately I have been unable to compile 3.10.0 for 64 bits in > > our g5 under Mac OS X, so that architecture remains untested. The > > segfault is occurring within the OCaml code. Any pointer would be > > greatly appreciated, or suggestions of tools that could help us > > hunting this down ... I'm awfully clueless about what to do > > today ... and it's been just a couple of days :-( > > > > best, > > > > Andres > > _______________________________________________ > > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > ------=_Part_17635_9127083.1186015168040 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline It might be useful to post the stack backtrace.

y

On 8/1/07, Andres Varon <avaron@gmail.com> wrote:
Another bit of information is that I can segfault the program even
for the most trivial input, with minimal computations involved. And
when run under gdb, the backtrace lists pure OCaml function calls,
and always the same one.

On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Andres Varon wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> Has anyone observed sudden segfaults in OCaml 3.10.0 amd-64 under
> linux? I have this program that has been run for quite a while
> without any segfault (almost a year). It may run for weeks at a
> time in parallel in our cluster, using as many as 256 processors at
> a time. We delayed updating to 3.10.0 due to the changes in camlp4,
> but the day before yesterday I worked on it, upgraded, and suddenly
> a lot of the nightly unit tests in 64 bits fail with a segfault (a
> LOT of them), when every test passed clean with 3.09.3. None of the
> tests for other architectures fail though (windows, mac os X intel
> and 32-bit ppc). One down side is that we have C structures
> wrapped, so one may blame our program.
>
> However, efence and valgrind show no sign of problem, and the fact
> that we have been using those structures for a while, and many test
> iterations have passed for many inputs, and not only us, but many
> people in other computers have compiled and run our program without
> having segfaults ... I'm doubtful.
>
> Unfortunately I have been unable to compile 3.10.0 for 64 bits in
> our g5 under Mac OS X, so that architecture remains untested. The
> segfault is occurring within the OCaml code. Any pointer would be
> greatly appreciated, or suggestions of tools that could help us
> hunting this down ... I'm awfully clueless about what to do
> today ... and it's been just a couple of days :-(
>
> best,
>
> Andres
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

------=_Part_17635_9127083.1186015168040--